coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Diyarbakır.
5.  On 19 January 1994 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody by officers of the Diyarbakır security police in connection with an investigation into an illegal organisation.
6.  On 7 February 1994 the applicant was brought before the Diyarbakır public prosecutor and then the investigating judge, who remanded the applicant in custody.
7.  By an indictment dated 17 March 1994, the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and a number of others, accusing him, inter alia, of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory under Article 125 of the Criminal Code.
8.  On 30 July 1997 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted and sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment, pursuant to Article 125 of the Criminal Code.
9.  The applicant appealed. On 1 March 1999 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on procedural grounds and remitted the case to the Diyarbakır State Security Court. Following constitutional amendments introduced on 7 May 2004, the State Security Courts were totally abolished. Subsequently, the applicant’s case was resumed before the 6th Assize Court of Diyarbakır.
10.  Throughout the whole proceedings the applicant regularly requested his release whereas the trial courts rejected his requests. On 20 October 2005 the applicant noted that he had already been detained for a period of more than eleven years and reiterated his request. Relying on the accusations against the applicant, the existence of strong evidence against him and the content of the case file, the 6th Assize Court of Diyarbakır refused his request again. The applicant appealed. On 25 October 2005 the 4th Assize Court of Diyarbakır dismissed the appeal without further reasoning.
11.  On 9 March 2007 the 6th Assize Court of Diyarbakır convicted the applicant and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On 7 March 2008 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Deputatskiy, the Republic of Sakha (Yakutiya).
5.  In the 1990s the applicant subscribed to a State savings scheme which would entitle him to receive a VAZ car in 1993. He paid the car’s full value but never received the car.
6.  On 13 February 2003 he received a partial compensation in the amount of 18,538.20 Russian roubles (RUB) equal to 13.35% of the car value.
7.  The applicant brought the court action against the authorities, seeking to recover the monetary value of the State promissory notes for purchasing of a car.
8.  On 30 June 2003 the Ust-Yanskiy District Court of the Sakha Republic (Yakutiya) allowed the applicant’s action against the Government and awarded him RUB 120,428.80 as the full car value less the amount already paid in February 2003. The award was to be paid at the expense of the Federal Treasury.
9.  On 28 July 2003 the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic upheld the judgment and it became final. The award remained unenforced.
10.  On 19 September 2003 the Ministry lodged a request for supervisory review of the case with the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Sakha (Yakutiya) Republic.
11.  On 15 July 2004 the Presidium quashed the judgment of 30 June 2003 and the appeal decision of 28 July 2003 on the ground of a violation of the substantive law and delivered a new judgment in which it dismissed the applicant’s claim in full.
4.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Saransk, the Republic of Mordovia.
5.  On 15 March 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft and detained pending trial. He was allegedly ill-treated by the police who sought to extract a confession.
6.  On 6 October 2003 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Saransk convicted the applicant of theft and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. However, on 11 February 2004 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia quashed his conviction on appeal and remitted the case for a retrial.
7.  On 25 May 2004 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Saransk again convicted the applicant of theft and sentenced him to two years and two months’ imprisonment. On 13 October 2004 the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence on appeal. The time spent in detention pending trial was to be counted towards the sentence. Thus, the applicant would have served his sentence by 15 May 2005.
8.  On 31 March 2005, following a request for supervisory review by the applicant, the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia reduced his sentence to two years’ imprisonment. The applicant was present and took part in the supervisory-review proceedings. Thus, according to article 408 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant should have been released immediately. However, he was returned to the prison. Once the prison administration received the decision of the Presidium of the Supreme Court, the applicant was released on 7 April 2005.
9.  The applicant then brought proceedings for compensation in respect of the excess time he had spent in prison.
10.  On 18 May 2006 the Leninskiy District Court of Saransk dismissed his claims. It held that the delay in his release had been due to the supervisory-review procedure, which had ended on 31 March 2005, and to the fact that the prison administration had not received the decision of 31 March 2005 of the Presidium of the Supreme Court until a week later and so were not liable for the additional period the applicant had spent in prison. On 4 July 2006 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mordovia upheld that judgment on appeal.
4.  The first applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Mardin. By a letter dated 11 June 2008, the applicants’ representative informed the Court that the second applicant had died on 10 March 2007 and that his son Mr Abdulvahap Çelik wished to pursue the application.
5.  In 1974, a third person named B.A. inherited a plot of land from her mother, a Syrian national. However, she did not have the land registered in her name at the time.
6.  On 9 July 1996 B.A.’s representative signed an agreement with the applicants before a notary public, promising to sell the land to them. The applicants paid the amount due and were told that B.A. would finalise the relevant formalities and transfer the ownership of the land to the applicants in the shortest possible time.
7.  On 1 August 1996 the applicants brought an action against B.A. before the Üsküdar Civil Court of General Jurisdiction. They claimed that she had failed to transfer the ownership of the land to them, although they had paid the purchase price. They requested that the land be registered in their names.
8.  On 30 December 2003 the court dismissed the action. It held that on 1 October 1966 the Cabinet of Ministers had issued a decree seizing the property of Syrian nationals living in Turkey, including the land in question. As the land had been owned by the State since 1966, the court concluded that the sale agreement of 9 July 1996 signed by B.A. was void.
9.  Both parties appealed against that decision. B.A. also put forward a plea of unconstitutionality against the decree of 1966.
10.  On 28 February 2005 the Court of Cassation dismissed the plea of unconstitutionality and upheld the first instance court’s decision.
11.  On 7 July 2005 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicants’ request for rectification. This decision was not served on the applicants and they learned about the outcome of the proceedings by tracking their application through the Court of Cassation’s web site.
7.  The applicant was born in 1923 and lives in Nicosia.
8.  The applicant stated that he was born in Karavas, a village on the coast in the Kyrenia district of northern Cyprus. On the death of his father, he inherited the house, located at 15, Lambousa Street, in which he had lived throughout his childhood. It was situated on plots nos. 268 and 269, sheet/plan XI/16W1 and 8W2, and was registered in the name of the applicant by virtue of registration no. 5725 of 23 March 1956; it consisted of three ground floor rooms, two basement rooms, one kitchen, two wells, one turbine water pump and one water storage tank. The applicant continued to make use of this house, where his sister lived, until July 1974.
9.  However, when he married in 1963, the applicant moved to a house nearby which he had purchased. It was situated on plots nos. 20 and 21/3, sheet/plan XI/16W2.E1, and was registered in the name of the applicant by virtue of registration no. 5678 of 23 January 1970. This second house, located at 10, Kanaris Street, consisted of three ground floor rooms, one room upstairs, two wells, one electric water pump and one water storage pump.
10.  The applicant also owned three plots of land in Karavas, some of which were lemon groves, with olive and carob trees growing on the others, and a share in a natural water spring. These properties were registered as follows:
(a) plot no. 273, sheet/plan XI/16W1, field with lemon groves of a total extent of 6,355 m², registered in the name of the applicant by virtue of registration no. 151 of 23 March 1956;
(b) plot no. 25, sheet/plan XII/18W1, field with carob and olive trees of a total extent of 11,372 m², registered in the name of the applicant by virtue of registration no. 4091 of 16 April 1957;
(c) plots nos. 76 and 79, sheet/plan XII/18W1, field with carob and olive trees of a total extent of 35,452 m², registered in the name of the applicant by virtue of registration no. 4269 of 23 January 1970;
(d) plot no. 140, sheet/plan XI/24W2, source of running water, registered for the 1/224 share in the name of the applicant.
11.  In support of his claim to ownership the applicant produced the original Land Certificates concerning each of his alleged properties, with the exception of the house described under paragraph 9 above. He alleged that the relevant Land Certificate had been submitted to the Kyrenia Land Survey Office for amendment in June 1974 and had been lost due to the Turkish invasion. He therefore produced an extract from the registries of the Republic of Cyprus, dated 29 June 1993, and indicating that the property at issue was registered in his name.
12.  Upon the 1974 Turkish intervention, the applicant left with his wife and two children for Limassol, southern Cyprus. He claimed that he had been deprived of his property rights, all his property being located in the area which was under the occupation and control of the Turkish military authorities. The latter had prevented him from having access to and from using and possessing his houses and fields.
4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Kandıra.
5.  On 9 July 1996 the applicant was arrested in Istanbul during a bank robbery. On 24 July 1996 he was brought before the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, who remanded him in custody.
6.  On 5 August 1996 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment against the applicant. Invoking Article 146 of the Criminal Code, he accused the applicant of membership of an illegal armed organisation and of involvement in activities which undermined the constitutional order of the State.
7.  The trial commenced before the Istanbul State Security Court. In the subsequent hearings, the court refused to release the applicant on account of the nature of the alleged offence and the state of the evidence.
8.  On 11 December 1997 the Istanbul State Security Court pronounced its judgment. It convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
9.  On 3 December 1998 the Court of Cassation quashed this judgment. The case was accordingly remitted to the Istanbul State Security Court.
10.  On 5 January 1999 the Istanbul State Security Court resumed the trial. During the subsequent hearings, the court rejected the applicant’s requests for release, having regard to the state of the evidence.
11.  On 19 December 2002 the Istanbul State Security Court once again convicted the applicant as charged and, pursuant to Article 146 of the Criminal Code, sentenced him to life imprisonment.
12.  On 16 September 2003 the Court of Cassation once again quashed the judgment of the first instance court.
13.  The proceedings continued before the Istanbul State Security Court. On 7 May 2004 the State Security Courts were abolished following a constitutional amendment, and the applicant’s case was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court.
14.  According to the information in the case file, the proceedings are still pending and the applicant is still remanded in custody.
7.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Athienou.
8.  The applicant alleged to be the owner of 11 plots of land situated in the northern part of Cyprus. His properties were registered as follows:
(a) Nicosia/Piroi, plot no. 124, sheet/plan 31/26, registration no. 4475, share: ½, area: 25,753 square metres (m²);
(b) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 607, sheet/plan 31/46, registration no. 31803, share: whole; area: 2,342 m²;
(c) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 670, sheet/plan 31/46, registration no. 23140, share: whole; area: 1,673 m²;
(d) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 671, sheet/plan 31/46, registration no. 25893, share: whole; area: 1,673 m²;
(e) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 635, sheet/plan 31/46, registration no. 23158, share: whole; area: 2,676 m²;
(f) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 291, sheet/plan 31/54, registration no. 25885, share: whole; area: 11,706 m²;
(g) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 339, sheet/plan 31/43, registration no. 25887, share: whole; area: 6,680 m²;
(h) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 338, sheet/plan 31/43, registration no. 23126, share: whole; area: 6,666 m²;
(i) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 82, sheet/plan 31/43, registration no. 29092, share: whole; area: 5,017 m²;
(j) Larnaca/Athienou, plot no. 122, sheet/plan 31/36, registration no. 23392, share: 1/2; area: 12,041 m²;
(k) Larnaca/Arsos, plot no. 59, sheet/plan 32/25, registration no. 842, share: 1/2; area: 22,409 m².
9.  In support of his claim to ownership, the applicant produced copies of the original title deeds and a cadastral plan on which his lands were marked in red. He specified that the plots of land described in paragraph 8 (a) and (k) above belonged to his father, who had transferred them to him on 10 April 1997 and 23 June 1995 respectively. Plot (a) was land which could be developed, located 150 metres from the road connecting Nicosia and Larnaca.
10.  The applicant had been forced to leave his properties by reason of the 1974 Turkish invasion, his lands being located in the area which was under the occupation and overall control of the Turkish military authorities. The latter had prevented him from having access to and from using his lands. He had been continuously prevented from entering the northern part of Cyprus.
11.  In December 1992 the applicant took part in a peaceful march to the Saint Epiphanios church, which was located in the occupied part of Cyprus in the vicinity of the Athienou village.
12.  On 8 December 1992 the Athienou Town Council invited the Ambassador of Turkey to the Council of Europe to request the Turkish Government to give the Turkish military forces in Cyprus instructions aimed at permitting the peaceful and free accomplishment of the said march. On 13 December 1992 the applicant and approximately 200 other persons left Athienou and reached the UN buffer zone, where they were stopped by the UN forces in Cyprus (UNFICYP). UNFICYP officials informed the applicant and the other demonstrators that in the absence of an authorisation from the Turkish-Cypriot authorities their security could not be guaranteed. The applicant and his fellow demonstrators had to abandon their plan to reach the Saint Epiphanios church.
8.  The applicants were born in 1930, 1936, 1958, 1961, 1959, 1983, 1985, 1987 and 1990 respectively. Their place of residence is not known. In a fax of 22 March 2002 the applicants' representative indicated that “the Hadjithomas family had [had] to ... emigrate abroad”.
9.  The first and second applicants (Mr Thomas George Hadjithomas and Mrs Ioulia Yioupa Hadjithoma) were a married couple. The third and fourth applicants (Mrs Paraskevi Hadjithoma-Hapeshi and Mr Nicos Thomas Hadjithomas) are their children. The fifth applicant (Mrs Xanthi Antoniou-Hadjithoma) is the widow of the elder son of the family, X, whom she married in 1983. The remaining applicants are the children of X and the fifth applicant.
10.  The first and second applicants alleged that they had lived with their children in Ayios Amvrosios, a village in the District of Kyrenia (northern Cyprus), where the first applicant owned several properties, including the family house. On 13 August 1974, as the Turkish troops were advancing, the applicants left Ayios Amvrosios and fled to the unoccupied part of Cyprus.
11.  On 12 January 1996 the first applicant transferred the ownership of most of his properties, including the family house, to his three children: the third and fourth applicants and X. In November 1996 X died. His estate was inherited by the fifth applicant and their children (the sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth applicants). Detailed information about the properties at issue is contained in the file. In particular, in 1974 the first applicant was the owner of 33 plots of land, including woodlands; the family house (registered under no. 10920, plot no. 40-41-476/2); a garden; a non-descript “site”; a “ruined room”; a “ruined mill with one room”; and an orchard with 12 mulberry trees. These properties were located in the villages of Ayios Amvrosios, Klepini and Chartzia.
12.  The applicants produced an affidavit from Mr Georgios Michael, the Kyrenia Deputy District Officer of the Department of Lands and Surveys of the Republic of Cyprus, stating that:
(a) for 18 of the properties (including the house) there existed original title deeds;
(b) for 6 other properties there existed the title deeds and “certificates of ownership of Turkish-occupied immovable properties” issued by the Republic of Cyprus; and
(c) for 15 other properties the original title deeds were lost in 1974 and only certificates of ownership were available.
All the above-mentioned documents have been produced by the applicants.
13.  The applicants claimed that they had been informed that their house in Ayios Amvrosios had been destroyed by the Turkish army. This fact was denied by the respondent Government.
4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Ağrı.
5.  On 28 January 1995 the applicant was arrested in Istanbul on suspicion of being a member of an illegal organisation. On 15 February 1995 he was remanded in custody.
6.  On 24 April 1995 the public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and nineteen other accused with the Istanbul State Security Court. On 2 May 1995 the trial commenced. On 10 May 2001 the applicant was released pending trial.
7.  By Law no. 5190, in June 2004 State Security Courts were abolished. Subsequently, the Istanbul Assize Court acquired jurisdiction over the case.
8.  On 23 October 2008 the Istanbul Assize Court ordered that the criminal proceedings against the applicant be terminated on the ground that the statutory time limit under Articles 102 and 104 of the Criminal Code had expired.
3.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Istanbul.
4.  On 15 August 1988 the applicant brought a case before the Erdek Civil Court against the Treasury, requesting to be registered as the owner of a certain plot of land.
5.  On 17 April 1990 the Erdek Civil Court granted the applicant’s request. The Treasury appealed.
6. Whenever he inquired about the outcome of the appeal proceedings, the applicant was informed by the registry of the first-instance court that the proceedings were still pending. In 1998, however, the applicant was informed by the Court of Cassation that the latter had actually rendered its decision long before, on 28 October 1992. The Erdek Civil Court declared, in response to a petition from the applicant, that the case file had never been sent back to it and it had subsequently attempted to recreate the case file, which appeared to have been lost.
7.  On 8 May 1998 the Treasury filed a petition with the Court of Cassation requesting that the decision of 28 October 1992 be rectified.
8.  On 28 September 1998 the Court of Cassation decided that it could not examine the Treasury’s request as the reconstituted file was not sufficient and it needed the original case file for such an examination. It therefore decided to send the file back to the Erdek Civil Court. According to the information submitted by the parties to the Court, the proceedings are still pending.
9.  In 2001 the Land Registry Commission attached to the General Directorate of Land Registration conducted a land registry survey and registered the title to the relevant plot under the name of a certain K.T. and the Treasury.
10.  On 30 May 2001 the applicant brought a case before the Erdek Cadastral Court, challenging the land registry survey.
11.  On 18 May 2004 an on-site inspection of the land was carried out, and on 20 October 2004 the Erdek Cadastral Court allowed the applicant’s request in part.
12.  On 10 November 2005 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 20 October 2004 and on 26 February 2007 it dismissed the Treasury’s rectification request.
7.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Nicosia.
8.  The applicant was born in Peristerona, a village in the District of Famagusta in northern Cyprus. He lived in Famagusta with his family in a four-bedroom apartment with an unobstructed view towards the sea, which he claimed that he owned. This apartment, located at no. 128 of the commercial and touristic main street named Kennedy Avenue, was indicated by no. 703 on a building erected upon a building site with plot no. 937 of block C and sheet/plan 33/21.2.3. It was registered in the name of the applicant under registration no. 1057.
9.  The applicant further claimed that at the time of the 1974 Turkish invasion he was the owner of land in Famagusta on which was located an Intercommunal Secondary Grammar school, known as the “Centre of Higher Studies”. This land covered a total area of 6,299 m², on plot no. 900 of block D and sheet/plan 24/59W2. It was registered in the name of the applicant under registration no. D-4840. On this land the applicant had erected a three-storey building, which had a total area of 2,020 m², comprising a basement, ground floor and two vertical floors above it. The applicant submitted that he was the owner and headmaster of the above-mentioned school, the premises of which are now part of the “Eastern Mediterranean University”.
10.  In support of his claims to ownership, the applicant produced the following documents:
- an agreement reached on 1 September 1968 between a certain G. Nicolaides and Mr Takis Saveriades (a member of the applicant's family) for the sale of an apartment located on the seventh floor of a flat on the Famagusta coast;
- a certificate issued on 28 November 2002 by the Department of Lands and Surveys of the Republic of Cyprus stating that the applicant was the owner of a flat without parking space, located in Famagusta, Kennedy Avenue, registered under plot no. 937, sheet/plan 3/21.2.3;
- a certificate issued on 11 September 2001 by the Department of Lands and Surveys of the Republic of Cyprus stating that the applicant was the owner of a field with an unregistered building, located in Famagusta, Salaminas Avenue, registered under plot no. 900, sheet/plan 24/59;
- a building permit issued on 11 September 1963 concerning plot no. 900, sheet/plan 24/59
11.  At the time of the 1974 Turkish invasion, the applicant and his family fled to southern Cyprus. He claimed that since then he had been deprived of his property rights, all his property being located in the area which is under the occupation and the control of the Turkish military authorities. The latter prevented him from having access to and from using and possessing his home and property in Famagusta as well as from practising his profession there.